[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bison 1.30f
From: |
Magnus Fromreide |
Subject: |
Re: Bison 1.30f |
Date: |
Thu, 20 Dec 2001 14:36:39 +0100 (MET) |
Yes, C++ do have all advantages that you are mentioning.
The problem people do have with your ideas is that bison is a tool that
generates C output.
If you want to have a bison that genrates code adapted for the variety of
C++ you are using then I suppose you could get that by means of some flag
machinery but in the default case I think that bison should target C89 for
some years to come. If there should be any secondary target languages then
I think C99 is a good candidate.
Compatibility with other YACC implementations is a secondary but still
important goal.
Compatibility with RATFOR is somewhat important but not enough to make
anybody notice it. (Historically yacc could generate output for RATFOR)
Compatibility with ObjC, C++, Java, Pike, ObjC++, et.c. is a bonus, not a
goal in or by itself.
I would say that there are very few reasons to take any cost in order to
acheive any such compability.
I invite you to generate a pattern file that is written in good C++ but
keep it a separate file from the normal one.
Readability for the default implemntation is important as well!
/MF
- Re: Bison 1.30f, (continued)
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/15
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Paul Eggert, 2001/12/17
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Paul Eggert, 2001/12/16
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/16
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Paul Eggert, 2001/12/17
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/18
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Paul Eggert, 2001/12/18
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/19
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Paul Eggert, 2001/12/19
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/20
- Re: Bison 1.30f,
Magnus Fromreide <=
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/21
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Magnus Fromreide, 2001/12/21
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/21
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Paul Eggert, 2001/12/20
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/21
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Akim Demaille, 2001/12/14
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Paul Eggert, 2001/12/14
- Re: Bison 1.30f, Akim Demaille, 2001/12/15
- Bison and POSIX requirements, Paul Eggert, 2001/12/17
- Re: Bison and POSIX requirements, Hans Aberg, 2001/12/18